A/HRC/30/64 challenge for all States and a grave threat to international peace and security, and that they had had a dire impact on the ability of all persons to enjoy their human rights. One delegate considered that the international community was experiencing terrorism that was transcending traditional borders in an unprecedented way. 33. Another delegate stated that the effect of terrorism on human rights should be studied because no country was safe from terrorism, as witnessed in Kuwait, Tunisia and France, the week before the discussion, and in Egypt, the day before the discussion, where the Prosecutor General was murdered in a terrorist attack. Some aspects of the resolution, further to which the panel discussion had been convened, were highlighted, for example, focus on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of various rights, especially the rights to safety and life, and other political, economic and cultural rights. It was underlined that fighting terrorism and protecting human rights were mutually reinforcing and that effectively combating terrorism required cooperation among all stakeholders. 34. Some delegates noted that terrorism could strike anywhere and at any time and that terrorist acts had very negative effects on the enjoyment of human rights, including depriving individuals of the right to life, liberty, health and security of person, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, including access to food and water, education and health services. One delegate described how terrorist acts had led not only to a heavy death toll, but also to the movement of several thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons in its territory. Another delegate said that attacks on religious establishments undermined the right to freedom of religion and belief and the right to security of person, and led to destruction of private property. The representative of an NGO stated that violent acts by groups of non-State actors against the general population for political purposes constituted abhorrent crimes that, when widespread or systematic, could amount to crimes against humanity. 35. Many delegates pointed out that terrorism was not linked to any religion, ethnic group, nationality or nation. Some specified that spreading fear — which is the aim of terrorism — was contrary to religious teachings and practices, which called for peace. The international community need to ensure that counter-terrorism efforts do not stigmatize certain communities; it was regretted that Muslims were often believed to be a threat. 36. One delegate urged States to adopt and implement multidimensional national strategies for combating terrorism, stating that spreading awareness about human rights and the values of tolerance was critical. Engagement with imams with a view to promoting the ideals of tolerant Islam was highlighted as a powerful tool for fostering a society free of terrorism. The representative of an NGO highlighted that religious leaders could play a role in combating extremism at the local, regional and international levels. 37. Some delegates called for a distinction to be made between State and non-State actors and indicated that, as parties to international human rights treaties, States had obligations to uphold human rights, whereas terrorists were criminals and should be treated as such. One delegate noted that combating terrorism involved political and security issues that would be dealt with more appropriately by the General Assembly and the Security Council; the Human Rights Council should focus on ensuring that any measures taken to combat counter-terrorism do not impact human rights. Another delegate highlighted the importance of the Council being able to reaffirm a united and consensual position on this issue. B. Combating terrorism while respecting human rights 38. Participants highlighted the obligations of States to protect the human rights of individuals under their jurisdiction and to take counter-terrorism measures that complied 9